War For Peace

“Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others.” — Edward Said

That quote resonates with us even today because it exposes a pattern that repeats across history. Every regime that wages war insists its war is different. It is framed as necessary, defensive, moral, reluctant, and even noble. Again and again, violence, whether in the form of war or abrogation of fundamental rights, is packaged as responsibility. Destruction is sold as a necessity to bring order. War is renamed peace.

But war, by its nature, brings ruin. It destroys infrastructure, uproots families, erases history, and kills innocent civilians who pose no threat to anyone. And even when declared objectives are supposedly achieved, the destruction often continues. The bombingd do not stop even when the justification has run out. The suffering goes on, and somehow it is still defended in the language of strategy, security, and national interest. Even communities and countries that have themselves endured profound inhuman tragedies can later subject others to pain and suffering in the name of peace. What is most difficult to comprehend is how those shaped by such suffering can inflict pain and suffering on others.

That is what makes modern war so grotesque: not only the violence itself, but the lies used to sanitize it.

While the world debates terminology, some of humanity’s oldest civilizations are reduced to rubble. Civilians are buried under collapsed buildings. Schools, hospitals, historical sites, and essential resources are destroyed. The loss is not accidental or collateral in any meaningful moral sense once it becomes repeated, normalized, and excused. At that point, it is no longer a tragedy alone. It is a choice.

We are told that institutions such as the United Nations exist to preserve peace, prevent escalation, and create space for negotiation. Yet when massive destruction unfolds in full public view, these institutions often appear paralyzed. Statements are issued. Concerns are expressed. Meetings are held. But the destruction continues. The world watches without doing anything to stop the deaths of innocent civilians.

Why?

Why, despite diplomacy, international law, and endless channels of negotiation, are wars still allowed to expand across borders and consume countless innocent lives? Why does the violence continue even after its stated objectives have supposedly been achieved? Is it because the attacked refuse to submit? Or because those who unleash war are not seeking security at all, but submission?

History will record the answer. It will also record the silence.

It is easy to speak when nothing is at stake. True courage begins when speaking carries a cost — when careers, alliances, reputations, and material interests are on the line. That is precisely where much of the world is failing now. The destruction itself will be remembered, but so will the calculated quiet of those who had a voice and chose not to use it.

Most wars are dressed up in the language of honor, defense, and necessity. But beneath that language, the real motives are power, money, influence, political survival, and control. Human life becomes secondary. The deaths of ordinary people become statistics, acceptable losses, background noise. This is mainly because the powerful are immune to the destructive effects of the war. All the risks are borne by other people and their children, while the rewards are collected by those who authorized the violence and those close to them. The pattern is painfully simple: let others die so that power may be preserved, expanded, and enriched. This is why the war is sold as necessary, so that no questions are asked, and dead soldiers are celebrated and honored as martyrs without raising questions about who was responsible for their deaths.

But there is nothing necessary or noble about bombing a school full of children. There is no moral sophistication that can justify the slaughter of innocents. There is no avoidance of danger in raping or sexually torturing prisoners or helpless civilians. That is not a strategy. It is not peacekeeping. It is not civilization defending itself. It is cruelty with political cover.

Bombing children is tyranny. Destroying civilian life and calling it peace is tyranny. Replacing one tyrant with another does not end oppression; it merely changes its face. Every war-mongering ruler insists that this war is different. This one is unfortunate but required. This one is for stability. This one is for peace. But peace built on the bodies of children is not peace. It is domination. It is terror.

So what is all this for?

What logic can justify such immense human and material loss? What political objective can outweigh a generation traumatized, cities shattered, and innocent lives erased? Listen carefully to the statements made by those on all sides of these wars. Too often, they reveal no real reverence for human life, only calculation, messaging, and blame management.

Perhaps the deepest moral failure is not only in the decision to wage war, but in the refusal of societies to condemn inhumanity when it is committed by their own side. We have become skilled at selective outrage. We mourn some children and rationalize the deaths of others. We always condemn brutality in enemies and excuse it in allies. We measure the worth of a life by the flag under which that life was born.

And still we call ourselves civilized.

If we cannot hold our own side accountable, then our morality is hollow. If conscience speaks only when convenient, then it is not conscience at all. It is performance. The least we owe the innocent is honesty. Honesty about what war is. Honesty about what is being done in our name. Honesty about the lies leaders tell when they wrap violence in the language of peace.

Any war that brings mass destruction, civilian suffering, and the devastation of entire societies cannot be casually excused as a path to peace. When leaders knowingly unleash such horror, and when others enable or ignore it, what we are witnessing is not peace in the making. It is an assault on humanity.

If we fail to name it honestly, then the loss is not only of lives, homes, and history. It is also the loss of our moral credibility. And if that loss means nothing to us, then perhaps the most frightening question is no longer what war has made of the world, but what silence has made of us.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic.  

From Playfields to Battlefields: The Death of Sportsmanship

Sports have been an integral part of human civilization for centuries. It is an expression of strength, spirit, and unity. From the ancient Olympics to modern-day tournaments, sports have transcended borders and ideologies, bringing people together through shared passion. Even today, teams command cult-like followings, and rivalries, whether between schools, clubs, or nations, ignite intense emotions. Yet, when the whistle blows, and the final score is called, tradition demands one thing above all: respect.

A handshake at the end of a match, whether between boxers, wrestlers, or cricketers, symbolizes that the competition was in the spirit of the game, not a personal battle. That simple gesture reminds us that sport is not war, that winning and losing are temporary, but dignity and respect endure. 

At the same time, there are many dignified ways for athletes to express dissent or solidarity without compromising the spirit of the game or disrespecting opponents. History offers numerous examples like players taking a knee to protest racial injustice, wearing black armbands or colored ribbons to honor victims of violence or disease, or making symbolic gestures that draw attention to humanitarian causes. Such acts do not target rival teams or nations; instead, they use the visibility of sport to promote awareness and compassion. These moments remind us that athletes can be both competitors and conscience-bearers, capable of challenging injustice while still upholding respect, discipline, and fairness on the field.

Sadly, that line has begun to blur.

The recent India-Pakistan cricket controversy is a troubling reminder. Reports that Indian players refused to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts and refused to accept the winner’s trophy from a Pakistani official reflect a disturbing trend, the politicization of sport. What should have been a celebration of skill turned into a performance of political symbolism. Commentators and social media voices, including the Prime Minister of India, went further, comparing India’s cricket victory to a military triumph, reducing the sacrifices of soldiers and victims of terrorism to the level of a game score.

This is where the spirit of sportsmanship dies.

If sports become extensions of political agendas, they cease to be sports. Players become pawns in a nationalistic spectacle where rivalry replaces respect. When we equate a game to war, we cheapen both—the discipline of the athlete and the sacrifice of the soldier. Even in actual warfare, military personnel are trained to respect their adversaries, dead or alive. Shouldn’t athletes, who represent the best of human discipline and grace, be held to at least that standard?

If a nation feels so strongly against playing another for political or moral reasons, the dignified course is simple: boycott the match altogether. Decline to participate rather than demean opponents who, like our own players, are ambassadors of their nation, not its politicians or generals. To show disrespect on the field is to insult the very principles of sportsmanship we claim to uphold.

Imagine if the roles were reversed, if Pakistan had won and celebrated it as a “victory” over India in warlike terms. Wouldn’t the outrage be swift and loud, condemning it as immature, provocative, and offensive? Then why do we excuse the same when it comes from our side?

Sport is meant to unite and inspire, not to divide and demean. The field, court, or pitch should never become a stage for political theater. True maturity lies not in shouting louder than your rival, but in walking off the field with grace, whether you win or lose.

If we continue down this path, where sports become war and war becomes sport, then both will lose their meaning. The cheers in the stadium will echo hollow, not with pride, but with propaganda.

Let’s bring back the handshake. The spirit. The respect. Because if that’s lost, then no victory will ever be worth celebrating.

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Israel has right to defend itself but this is not an act of defense

The recent attack by Israeli forces on the Gaza Strip in Palestine has stunned many around the world. Indiscriminate brutality displayed towards civilian targets like a disability center and very insensitive comments by some Israeli politicians about Palestinians have shocked many. The images coming out of Gaza about this brutal attack are very disturbing. Neither this conflict nor the violence is new but still whatever is happening has shocked many. Both sides, Israel and Palestine have suffered because of violence related to border conflict. The history behind this dispute is very long and complicated and I don't think we can discuss it on this forum, there is enough material available on the internet related to this issue and interested readers can easily find reliable sources to educate themselves about this conflict. Israel is surrounded by hostile countries from all sides, many of them don't appreciate their existence but because of their military power and support from all over the world none of those countries can do much against them. Many commend them for the way they managed to survive and excel in such a hostile environment. Israel survived all attacks and is now considered the most powerful military power in that region, no other country can match them in technological and military power. It is right to give credit wherever it is due. Between Palestine and Israel, the latter is much more advanced as far as military capabilities are concerned. Terrorist organizations like Hamas (which is now a political establishment also) control parts of Palestine and play a major role in recruiting youths from that region who participate in terrorist activities. There is no doubt that any type of terrorist attack should not be tolerated, but to punish the entire Palestine for the fault of Hamas is wrong and unjustifiable.

If you look at the victims of the Israeli attack there are many innocent women and children who have died for no fault of theirs. It is really sad to see so many children die, and it is heart-wrenching to see the images of some Israelis eating popcorn, and watching attacks on Gaza. Even in war, there are some rules to follow, so much brutality toward civilians is not acceptable. No one is questioning Israel's right to defend itself but whatever they are doing in Gaza right now is not a defense but it is a brutal and indiscriminate attack. The fight between Israel and Palestine is not a war between equals. Israel is much stronger than Palestine in all aspects (technology, precise and advanced weapons, well-equipped military, and international support). This is the reason whenever Israel decides to attack Palestine there is almost no (or minimum) resistance from Palestine, but that doesn't give Israeli military forces a free pass to do whatever they want. Any attack on Israeli civilians is wrong no one can justify it but the killing of Palestinian civilians like this by Israel is also a form of terrorism. If the use of human bombs or missiles by Hamas or any other terrorist organization to kill civilians is wrong then killing civilians by using military forces is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make one right. If one party makes a mistake it doesn't give the other party the right to make the same mistake that too in a much more brutal way. Both actions kill innocent civilians only the methods used are slightly different but both actions are equally condemnable. We humans are so intelligent that we can justify any of our actions. Both sides keep on justifying their violent actions and civilians keep on dying, this conflict has already taken many innocent lives, destroyed many families, and caused immense pain and damage to both sides. This loss of civilian lives must stop. Israel should stop its brutal aggression towards civilians of Palestine and all terrorist acts against them by Palestinian terrorist organizations should also stop. Both sides should try to resolve the issue via diplomacy and discussion. Whatever Israel is doing today in Gaza is wrong and the rest of the world should take a stand against it. So far most responses (including Govt of India's) are very diplomatic, they look more like political responses than humanitarian responses. Once again, most countries of the world chose to remain mute spectators to the loss of civilian lives right in front of their eyes. We have made this mistake in the past and we are repeating it again, the only difference is that one of the victims of the past is the perpetrator in this case, and such is the irony of this situation.  

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

How can we justify any war?

Recently I came across this article (warning: graphic images) about the effects of weapons used during the Iraq war on the general public. The images make you feel really sick and tell us how devastating war can be even to its survivors. Any war or armed struggle on a domestic or international level results in a lot of physical and emotional damage to people directly or indirectly associated with it, but still people choose violence to settle disputes. People kill each other for very trivial reasons (communal riots are an ideal example of this). Violence is not new to humans. We have seen many wars and massacres at various levels (including two world wars), and each time when it happens we feel sad and devastated. After each war, we talk about the futility of using violence to solve any dispute but again next time people forget everything that happened in the past and engage in fresh violence in the name of God, country, or whatever reason they can find, expecting that it will produce better results this time. People do not realize that it is futile to try the same thing again and again and expect different outcomes, they do it all the time. Many great epics (like Mahabharat) are also full of stories of war heroics and bravery which directly or indirectly inspire people to think that violence is a very legitimate and effective option to settle disputes or to achieve justice.

Any war results in pain and suffering, the use of violence to curb violence rarely works, and even if it works or brings peace most of the time it's temporary, it's just a matter of time before violence in the form of revenge erupts. All groups involved in war often justify their position using their own logic, normally both sides claim that they are fighting for self-defense, justice, and peace. This is what happens in most of the wars and communal riots, both sides feel they are killing others for the right cause, no one is willing to compromise and ultimately everyone suffers, but they still refuse to learn the lesson. People think that the use of violence can bring a quick solution to a problem. Somehow, people believe that the use of devastating weapons like atomic bombs can save many lives. People also think that long, tedious, and complicated negotiations cannot settle complicated issues between two nations and that war is an attractive option to settle issues quickly. However, in reality, rarely does it work like this. Lengthy wars, ethnic clashes, and continuous communal tensions between two communities are examples to prove that violence rarely brings any permanent solution to a problem.

Nations kill people to show that killing people is wrong, there is so much contradiction in this that's why the use of violence to stop violence rarely works. There are a few crazy dictators in this world, a few fanatic religious leaders who don't hesitate to put their entire country or community at risk just for their own personal selfish motives. These people somehow hypnotize people from their countries or communities who support their crazy ideas without even thinking about the consequences. Any war is an unfortunate event and its result is always tragic. No matter which side declares itself as a winner, there are tragic scenes on both sides, precious lives are lost, bitterness is created between countries or communities that last generations and people from both sides suffer for a long time.

Many people who support the use of wars or violence use a lot of reasoning and logic to justify it. They feel it's perfectly fine to lose some lives to save some. There is also a feeling that some people don't understand the language of peace and only violence is the way to teach a lesson to them. But this is not always true, there are rarely completely right or wrong sides in most conflicts that result in war, most often the winner is always right, and the loser is evil. But most wars rarely produce the result they are supposed to deliver. For me any war is a story of pain and failure of humanity, they leave permanent scars on our psyche.

I wonder when people will realize the futility of using violence to settle any dispute? I wonder when they will realize that every human life is equally precious no matter which religion, race, caste, or country they belong to. After reading about any war I always wonder how people can justify any war? Every war kills many innocent people for no fault of theirs, I can understand that sometimes on rarest of rare occasions, we can not avoid war or violent conflict but I still wonder how can we justify violence on such a large scale that takes many innocent lives? And if wars can solve disputes, why do we still have so many of them even after fighting so many wars to settle the same disputes? Why every time some new dispute emerge after each war? As I said, I know that sometimes it's really hard to avoid war or the use of violence (especially for self-defense), but I fail to understand when people glorify and justify it as if they did something great by killing some innocent people during this process. Loss of innocent lives is called collateral damage and I think this collateral damage itself should force us to avoid any war. Questions are many but answers are difficult to find. I am still trying to find a proper explanation and understand why two sides want to engage in an act of war and how people can justify it? 

Thanks for reading and please share your views about this topic. 

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing] 

Links:
1. Iraqi birth defects worse than Hiroshima (warning: graphic images)

Bhagavad Gita — As It Is or As It Is Not (Part II)

Recently, I wrote a post related to my view about some of the purports by Prabhupada in his book "Bhagavad Gita As It Is." I particularly discussed his comments about women and mentioned lines from Purport where he said that women are more prone to degradation compared to men, and also quoted Chanakya's statement about women to support his views. Some readers were unhappy because of this and said that it was not Prabhupad's view but Arjun's. They also said that actually Arjun expressed his concern about women in related verses of the Bhagavad Gita, and Prabhupada just explained it to us in a better way in his purport. So let's try to see what's really going on in those verses of the Bhagavad Gita. 

The scene is from the great epic Mahabharat when both the armies (Kaurav and Pandav) are ready to fight a war and are assembled on the battlefield. Just before the war is about to start, Arjun expresses his desire to have one last look at the opponent's army. Krishna takes his chariot closer to the Kuru army, and there this conversation starts between him and Arjun. Arjun sees many of his relatives, cousins, teachers, and friends standing there. He has to kill/defeat them to win the war, the thought of killing his loved ones for the sake of the kingdom makes him feel emotional and nervous. He expresses these feelings to his mentor Krishna in many of these verses. Here is the translation of a few verses before and after verse 1.40 (chapter 1, verse 40). I am going to reproduce two translations here for the sake of comparison.

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's translation,

(26) There saw Arjuna standing fathers and grandfathers, teachers, uncles, brothers, sons and grandsons as also companions.

(27) And also fathers-in-law and friends in both the armies. When the son of Kunti (Arjuna) saw all these kinsmen thus standing arrayed.

(28) He was overcome with great compassion and uttered this in sadness:

(29) My limbs quail, my mouth goes dry, my body shakes my hair stands on end.

(30) (The bow) Gandiva slips from my hand and my skin is burning all over. I am not able to stand steady. My mind is reeling.

(31) And I see evil omens, O Kesava (Krsna), nor do I foresee any good by slaying my own people in the fight.

(32) I do not long for victory, O Krsna, nor kingdom nor pleasures. Of what use is kingdom to us, O Krsna, or enjoyment or even life?

(33) Those for whose sake we desire kingdom, enjoyments pleasures, they stand here in battle, renouncing their lives and riches.

(34) Teachers, fathers, sons and also grandfathers; uncles fathers-in-law, grandsons and brothers-in-law and (other) kinsmen.

(35) These I would not consent to kill, though they kill me, O Madhusudana (Krsna), even for the kingdom of the three worlds how much less for the sake of the earth?

(36) What pleasure can be ours, O Krsna, after we have slain the sons of Dhrtarastra? Only sin will accrue to us if kill these malignants.

(37) So it is not right that we slay our kinsmen, the sons of Dhrtarastra. Indeed. How can we be happy? O Madhava (Krsna), if we kill our own people?

(38) Even if these whose minds are overpowered by greed, see no wrong in the destruction of the family and no crime in treachery to fiends:

(39) Why should we not have the wisdom to turn away from this sin, O Janardana (Krsana), we who see the wrong in the destruction of the family?

(40) In the ruin of a family, its ancient laws are destroyed: and when the laws perish, the whole family yields to lawless-ness.

(41) And when lawlessness prevails, O Varsneya (Krsna), the women of the family become corrupted and when women are corrupted, confusion of castes arises.

(42) And to hell does this confusion bring the family itself, as well as those who have destroyed it. For the spirits of their ancestors fall, deprived of their offerings of rice and water.

(43) By the misdeeds of those who destroy a family and create confusion of varanas, the immemorial laws of the caste and the family are destroyed.

(44) And we have heard it said, O Janardana (Krsna), that the men of the families whose laws are destroyed needs must live in hell.

(45) Alas, what a great sin have we resolved to commit in striving to slay our own people through our greed for the pleasures of the kingdom!

(46) Far better would it be for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, with weapons in hand, should slay me in the battle, while I remain unresisting and unarmed.

(47) Having spoken thus on the (field of) battle, Ariuna sank down on the seat of his chariot, casting away his bow and arrow, his spirit overwhelmed by sorrow.   

Translation from the Bhagavad Gita as it is,

When the son of Kunti, Arjuna, saw all these different grades of friends and relatives, he became overwhelmed with compassion and spoke thus.(1.27)

Arjuna said: My dear Krsna, seeing my friends and relatives present before me in such a fighting spirit, I feel the limbs of my body quivering and my mouth drying up.(1.28)

 My whole body is trembling, my hair is standing on end, my bow Gandiva is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning.(1.29)

I am now unable to stand here any longer. I am forgetting myself, and my mind is reeling. I see only causes of misfortune, O Krsna, killer of the Kesi demon.(1.30)

I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Krsna, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom, or happiness.(1.31)

O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? O Madhusudana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhrtarastra?(1.32-35)

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, O Krsna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?(1.36)

O Janardana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one's family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?(1.37-38)

With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.(1.39)

When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny. (1.40)

An increase of unwanted population certainly causes hellish life both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition. The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.(1.41)

By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children, all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated. (1.42)

O Krsna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell. (1.43)

Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts. Driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness, we are intent on killing our own kinsmen.(1.44)

Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.(1.45)

Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield. It is the custom--according to ksatriya fighting principles--that an unarmed and unwilling foe should not be attacked. Arjuna, however, decided that even if attacked by the enemy in such an awkward position, he would not fight. He did not consider how much the other party was bent upon fighting. All these symptoms are due to soft-heartedness resulting from his being a great devotee of the Lord. Sanjaya said: Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief.(1.46) 

Don't bother about the numbering of highlighted verses (1.41 vs 1.40) as they are slightly different in both translations (one has 47 verses in the first chapter and the other only 46), and numbering is not important here. One can clearly see that both translations are not that different from each other. Now let's read the purport of verse 1.40,

Purport for verse 1.40 from Bhagavad Gita As it is,

Good population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The varashrama religion’s principles were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Chanakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varashrama system. On the failure of such varashrama -dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence.

To get a clear picture of what's going on, it is necessary to read all this. The situation of Arjun and his dilemma is described here. After seeing all his close relatives, teachers, and other dear ones, Arjun is feeling emotional here. His love for his relatives and his memories of the time he spent with them compel him to think about whether this war is worth fighting or not. Arjun was a very celebrated warrior, and the war was not a new thing for him; he had fought many of them before coming to fight this one. 

Arjun is feeling emotional weakness and wants to explain to Krishna his situation. Along with his emotional dilemma, he also wants to tell Krishna about the "effects of war on society." He is a clever guy and wants to make a very solid argument for not fighting the war. One cannot walk away just like that from such an important battle of their life; there has to be a very strong reason to do that, and Arjun was trying to put up a very strong argument. In that respect, he mentions all these bad things that war can bring to society and its people. He expresses his concern about the destruction of dynasties and the destruction of law, which might lead to total lawlessness in families and henceforth in society. Because of the prevalence of irreligion or lawlessness in a family or society, women of the family might become corrupted or polluted, resulting in further problems. Here, it seems he is mainly concerned about the sexual exploitation of women in a male-dominated society. After any big war (like World War) where lots of lives (mostly men) are lost on the battlefield, society's structure and composition might change drastically. A huge difference in the male-to-female ratio can create a lot of problems. Arjun's concerns seem very legitimate. 

One might accuse Arjun of taking the escapist route here; he doesn't want to fight the war, which is why he is giving reasons, but it's not out of fear; he is not a coward. He wants to question the necessity of fighting this war, which might lead to heavy losses for both sides fighting the war. He wants to show how war is "evil" and how it can prove disastrous for the whole society. He is more emotional here because this particular war involves people from his own family fighting on both sides. He can see the destruction of his own family and kingdom (which they want to acquire). His concerns and questions are very serious; that's the reason Krishna gave him such a detailed reply, which we call 'Bhagavad Gita'.

Physical abuse or sexual exploitation of females by victorious army men was very common in those days (and it happens even now), and in that regard, Arjun is expressing his concern. Nowhere, Arjun talk about the character of women, them being more prone to degradation compared to men, or women being not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. I feel that all these points are unnecessarily discussed in the purport; they are not at all related to the verse. If Prabhupad wanted to blame, he should have blamed males (or men) for polluting women, forcing such a big-scale war on society, but for some reason, his focus is all on women. Women can not be held responsible for rape or other physical abuse forced on them. How come one can blame a woman for an unwanted child after the rape? I found these views about women expressed in purport to be totally biased.

We all know that women have a very important role to play in any family, but the entire family's traditions or chastity and faithfulness don't depend only on them, but on all members of the family. Why put the entire burden on the shoulders of women? If the verse doesn't talk about women's nature or compare them with men, then why purport of this verse deviate from the main subject, the disastrous effect of war on society, so much? Why blame women for no fault of theirs? 

At the end of her purport, Prabhupada also blames 'irresponsible men' for provoking adultery in society, notice the use of the term "irresponsible" here, but when he commented about women, he was not talking about "irresponsible women" but women in general, that's where I have objection and I think scholar like him should have been more careful before passing such a general remark against women. And I don't think even women of the era of the Mahabharat were any less intelligent than men. His opinion about women can be his personal opinion, and he has full right to express it, but to deliver it in such a way (in the name of Gita) is wrong, according to me.

In the preface of the book, Prabhupada writes, "The Krishna consciousness movement is essential in human society, for it offers the highest perfection of life. How this is so is explained fully in the Bhagavad-gita. Unfortunately, mundane wranglers have taken advantage of Bhagavad-gita to push forward their demonic propensities and mislead people regarding right understanding of the simple principles of life." 

He claims that the importance of the Krishna Consciousness movement is explained in the Gita. Isn't it the direct marketing of his movement (ISKON) under the name of Gita as it is? Isn't he pushing his own agenda and advertising his organization here? This is the same thing for which he accused other authors. He has the right to do it, nothing wrong with it, but then, at least, please don't say something bad about others for doing the same thing. One can understand if he wrote this book as a manual for ISKON followers, as an interpretation of the Gita exclusively for his movement and its members (which is what that book is). I am not against his book, his translations, or his movement, but I am surprised by his claim that he is presenting the Bhagavad Gita "as it is." He is clearly trying to push his own philosophy and beliefs under the name of purports. I still use this book along with others to read translations of the Bhagavad Gita. The book nicely presents each verse in Devanagari script, a Latin transliteration, word-for-word meanings (Sanskrit-English), and English translation of the verse, but unfortunately, the major part of the book is Prabhupad's purports, and be careful while reading them. It's up to readers to decide what they think about the author's intentions in this book. I have expressed my opinion here. 

I just mentioned this book as an example, as I am reading it currently, I am not saying that this is the only book where the author tries to push his agenda in the name of some ancient scripture. There must be many other scriptures that might have been used by different authors for the same purpose. I think this is just one example. Readers should be careful while reading these types of books. They should try to differentiate between the actual translation of the text and the author's own opinion. It's always better to read more than one translation of any text (from other languages) to get a general idea about the meaning of that text. I think this post should explain my views, which I expressed in the previous post about the Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Thanks a lot for reading, and please share your views. 

Further reading:
1. Bhagadvad Gita-As it is or As it is NOT..

2. http://www.hknet.org.nz/seX-Vedic-view-of-women.html  

3. Why Krishna delivered Bhagavad Gita to Arjun not to someone else? 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Krishna: Man or God? (Part I)

Arguably, Krishna is the most complex character from the epic Mahabharat. I have been fascinated by the complexity of Krishna’s character since my college days. He is a multidimensional character; one can see all shades of human nature in this single character. There are many characters in Mahabharat who display one or two traits of human nature brilliantly, but in Krishna's character, one can see everything, all in one; that's why people often wonder who he is. God or human? A hero or villain? In the Mahabharat, Krishna is present as God himself; he is the incarnation of Vishnu. The book seems to be clear about the divinity of his character. But in the story, not all his actions match his character of God. In fact, to many, his character may seem to have a dual personality, one who preaches the highest morality and another who doesn't hesitate to use the dirtiest tricks to win the war or kill the opponent. His presence was essential for the Pandavas’ victory in the war. Krishna didn’t fight in the war using any weapon, but he was the brain behind the Pandavas’ war strategy and played a key role in killing all the commanders-in-chief of the Kuru army. Despite all his faults and mistakes, almost all the characters in the Mahabharat admire him. His popularity has grown over time, even after people know all these contradictions about him. Krishna is one of the most popular Gods in India; maybe he has the largest number of followers among all Gods in India.

Krishna tried his best to avoid war; he even made a very generous offer to Duryodhan on behalf of Yudhishthir (to give him just five villages instead of half of the kingdom). He tried very hard to convince Duryodhan that war was not good for both sides, but he failed. Once all his attempts to avoid war failed.  Once war was declared, he believed in winning the war at any cost. He believed that the Pandavas’ cause was right, and the only thing that mattered to him was their victory. It’s not unusual for a hero to win the battle using cunning ways; there are many examples in history, but we don’t expect this type of behavior from God. If God is all-powerful and all knowledgeable, then why can't he fight the war by fair means? That means in the epic, he is also a human, or God is not omnipotent (all-powerful). Actually, the Mahabharat shows us many instances where it challenges the concept of an omnipotent God. 

During the war, we see an altogether different side of Krishna; his darker side is exposed during crucial moments of war. He wanted Pandavas to win and was ready to pay any price for that. He has to use all his charm, power, and intelligence from the first day of war itself. First, he has to use his power as a God to convince Arjun to fight the war. He has to reveal his divine nature to Arjun to convince him that whatever he is saying is the right thing (Bhagavad Gita was delivered in this process).  He is also seen as an opportunist who teaches an honest man (Yudhisthir) to tell a lie (about the death of Ashwathnama), the only lie he told in his all life. He even advises hesitant Arjun to strike down Karna when Karna was in a helpless and defenseless state. Because of these acts, as the war progresses and the Kuru army’s commanders fall one by one, we somehow begin to sympathize with the Kauravas. Even Duryodhan, before dying on the battlefield, lists Krishna’s many misdeeds during the war and accuses him of not fighting fairly. People might think that the end result of his actions justified the means he used, but I don't think Krishna thought like that. After winning the war, Krishna, who is cheerful throughout the epic, becomes serious and gives a very sobering message to the victorious Pandavas. He says that the Kauravas were great warriors, and they could not have defeated them in a fair fight; that is why he had to use magic and deceit on their behalf. It seems that the epic’s morality is subordinate to Krishna, the God.  

Many Critics and intellectuals have studied his character in very much detail, but these books are not very popular in the general public, as they put you in a very uncomfortable position. Krishna's role in the Mahabharat forces us to confront a moral dilemma. It puts us in a difficult situation, where it’s difficult to differentiate between good and bad. Both sides in war engage in good, bad, and even ugly deeds, and there is greatness on both sides. Krishna's character is also like that; it contains shades of all characters in the epic. Krishna is Karna, Arjun, Yudhisthir, Bhishma, Shakuni, and Drona all in one. One must accept all sides of Krishna, no matter how contrasting they are. But people divided his personality into many pieces, took the piece that they liked or were comfortable with, and neglected all other aspects. Some only accepted him as an adorable child, some were happy with his raas leelas, some took his image as a lover, some wanted only his Bhagavad Gita, and some saw him as a villain and criticized him for his actions during the war. Many bhakti movements only accept him in portions and present only a one-dimensional image of him. They glorify only certain aspects of Krishna's personality and keep mum or give some vague explanations about other aspects that they are not comfortable with. As I said, one can find whatever they want in his personality, so all these movements have taken bits and pieces of his personality and used them to propagate their own philosophies. I feel this is a great tragedy that people never tried to accept and understand him totally.

Thanks for reading, and please share your comments.

Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing.